> These sub-BL listings still have been used in 3.1.x, no need to dig into > the ancient age of 2.5x. As you said yourself, "a release or two ago". > Why do you now bring up that version?
That's the last version I did anything serious with, and version used to produce the system I'm presently replacing. Thought it may help from a 'context' pov. > Uhm, did I really give the impression you'd have been annoying? Nah, not > my intention. > However, I got the impression you do not actually realize the > suitability of these tests to identify spam. Like the man says - without smileys, e-mail would lead to even more fist-fights than it already does :) > Varying mileage or not. Did > you have a look at recent mass-check results? Kind of missing spam hits > at all. Yes. FYI - I've always used the rfc-Ignorant stuff to add, shall we say 'texture' to other info. For example, if you hit on missing abuse and postmaster, and sender DNS is broken, etc, etc, you're probably dealing with an 'unloved' domain, and thus (in my experience) more likely to receive spam from it. I repeat - your mileage may vary, but in situation I'm dealing with, it's helpful. > So, no, I guess I'd better not post these trivial rules in public. The > above hints are a dead give-away already. Absolutely not - to do so would be patronising beyond words! Thanks for your help
